"The Phoenix Coyotes and the team’s regional sports television partner, FOX Sports Arizona, announced today a new long-term television rights agreement that ensures FOX Sports Arizona will remain the Coyotes’ exclusive local television partner well into the next decade. As per club policy, financial terms were not disclosed.

“We are very pleased to renew our partnership with FOX Sports Arizona,” said Coyotes President and CEO Anthony LeBlanc. “This new agreement will provide the Coyotes with a home on Arizona’s premier sports network for many years to come. We look forward to FOX Sports Arizona providing our fans with outstanding Coyotes coverage all season. This extension further solidifies the long-term future of the Coyotes franchise in the Valley.”"

FOX Sports Arizona will broadcast 70 games, with 47 games on FOX Sports Arizona and 23 games on its FOX Sports Arizona Plus channel. Combined, the two channels will televise 38 Coyotes home games and 32 of the team’s road games.
...
In addition to the 70 games broadcast on FOX Sports Arizona and FOX Sports Arizona Plus, KTVK will televise 10 Coyotes games this season and NBC Sports Network and TSN2 will televise the Coyotes game against the St. Louis Blues on Tuesday, Nov. 12 as well as the Coyotes game against the Los Angeles Kings on Wednesday, Apr. 2.

Yes that is good news, and like others wondering about the financial aspects. Likely a performance based contract, lower up-front fee but with revenues to the club increasing based on BBM's. Its a start. Importance piece.

The Coyotes and News Corp.-owned Fox Sports Arizona also announced today they reached a new 12-year television deal. FSAZ will broadcast 70 games this season. The regional network has been broadcasting Coyotes games without a deal so far this year. Financial terms were not disclosed. The Coyotes had been on a year-by-year deal with FSAZ during the teamâ€™s ownership turmoil.

Yes that is good news, and like others wondering about the financial aspects. Likely a performance based contract, lower up-front fee but with revenues to the club increasing based on BBM's. Its a start. Importance piece.

Good that the local metro area can see all the games. Wherever the Coyotes are at (indeed, any major league sports team), every game should be televised in the local market. No crap like Loria pulled with the Montreal Expos back in the day (though the previous 2 owners were fairly stupid on the media front, though apparently not as bad as Dollar Bill Wirtz or Jeffrey Loria).

Good that the local metro area can see all the games. Wherever the Coyotes are at (indeed, any major league sports team), every game should be televised in the local market. No crap like Loria pulled with the Montreal Expos back in the day (though the previous 2 owners were fairly stupid on the media front, though apparently not as bad as Dollar Bill Wirtz or Jeffrey Loria).

Click to expand...

I think it's a necessary component to have any hope that younger generations will buy into the game and the NHL. Personally, I'm surprised it's 12 yrs, but good on the ownership for getting a longer contract given all the issues.

Just curious, but what would the outs be on something like this? If the out has a fee for the Coyotes could this be used as a way to get to the 50 million dollar lost for the team to get the out clause in Glendale?

Not trying to get anyone riled up just when I saw this that crossed my mind.

Just curious, but what would the outs be on something like this? If the out has a fee for the Coyotes could this be used as a way to get to the 50 million dollar lost for the team to get the out clause in Glendale?

Not trying to get anyone riled up just when I saw this that crossed my mind.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. The loss has to be based on ongoing operations, not the fee paid to get out of a contract. Furthermore, I don't think broadcast contracts are binding in the same way that an arena contract would be, so if the team needs to move, the contract probably has a termination clause written into it.

I don't think so. The loss has to be based on ongoing operations, not the fee paid to get out of a contract. Furthermore, I don't think broadcast contracts are binding in the same way that an arena contract would be, so if the team needs to move, the contract probably has a termination clause written into it.

Not disclosed. It may leak out at some point.

Click to expand...

They can lose money on a TV deal if they are paying to air games.

The Arena League was losing money on their deal with the NFL Network since they had to pay to set everything up each game that was televised. Not saying this is the case but it's a possible scenario considering the team's TV value(ratings) and the length of the deal.

Good for them these are important steps, curious what kind of financials are attached to that though.

Click to expand...

I bet close to 0$ or the team is paying to get on air. Otherwise you can be sure that Leblanc would have shouted on every roof in Phoenix about his fat juicy TV contract. Just to prove the naysayers wrong.

I bet close to 0$ or the team is paying to get on air. Otherwise you can be sure that Leblanc would have shouted on every roof in Phoenix about his fat juicy TV contract. Just to prove the naysayers wrong.

Click to expand...

This. Considering that no details were disclosed, this is proably correct.

I bet close to 0$ or the team is paying to get on air. Otherwise you can be sure that Leblanc would have shouted on every roof in Phoenix about his fat juicy TV contract. Just to prove the naysayers wrong.

I have to agree with something earlier in the thread about ratings based pay. Coyotes television ratings have improved slightly, but they are still lower than the Diamondbacks and the Suns. But let's be realistic, Fox Sports Arizona have neglected the Coyotes routinely. They care about their Baby Backs and their Suns. The fact that last year in a shortened season they didn't show every game on television is a slap in the face. I can understand not showing a home game, but there is no reason why every away game shouldn't be televised since the home market obviously can't attend the game. There was a game that neither local station was airing, so they had the game on GameCenter with the in-house feed. That is a complete fail on the part of the NHL in general in my opinion.

Also..."the Coyotes have the fourth lowest number of households (16,223) watching games among the National Hockey Leagueâ€™s 30 teams. Only the Florida Panthers (4,000 households), Columbus Blue Jackets (11,000) and Colorado Avalanche (16,000) have fewer viewers, according to the Sports Business Journal and Sporting News."

The Arena League was losing money on their deal with the NFL Network since they had to pay to set everything up each game that was televised. Not saying this is the case but it's a possible scenario considering the team's TV value(ratings) and the length of the deal.

Click to expand...

Ah, that's what you meant. Yes, if they actually do have to pay production costs, or a portion thereof, and the revenue shared doesn't cover it fully, then that would count as operational costs.

However-- we have no idea about the details or value.

It should be noted though that sports networks try very hard to find content. They need to fill up their line-up 24/7 and the better their offering overall, the more they can charge in subscriber fees which is becoming more important than revenue from advertising.

So far this year, the hightest number for a Coyotes game was 1.9. That is about 30,000ish. Anyone have any idea what a television contract would be worth for a team averaging around 20,000 households?

Are we talking a couple hundred thousand tops?

Thanks

Click to expand...

I think the lowest valued contract I've seen mentioned in recent years was the Columbus Blue Jackets, which was on the order of $2-3 MM per annum. Tampa was being used as a comparable, with a contract ~$9-10 MM. The bankruptcy filings indicated the old contract while Moyes was around was around $3-4 MM (iirc??).

Ah, that's what you meant. Yes, if they actually do have to pay production costs, or a portion thereof, and the revenue shared doesn't cover it fully, then that would count as operational costs.

However-- we have no idea about the details or value.

It should be noted though that sports networks try very hard to find content. They need to fill up their line-up 24/7 and the better their offering overall, the more they can charge in subscriber fees which is becoming more important than revenue from advertising.

I think the lowest valued contract I've seen mentioned in recent years was the Columbus Blue Jackets, which was on the order of $2-3 MM per annum. Tampa was being used as a comparable, with a contract ~$9-10 MM. The bankruptcy filings indicated the old contract while Moyes was around was around $3-4 MM (iirc??).

Click to expand...

Kind of reminds of me of CART the final years before the merger when they were paying for the privilege of having the races broadcast. For them they were desperate to get ANY sort of visibility. Paying for coverage can be beneficial IMO, as long as you are using other means of visibility and you are able to "convert" those people who catch the game on TV into coming to the games, buying tickets, ect. I hope this gives them some exposure which leads to higher ticket sales.